Aereo is fighting a much larger battle. It's the difference between fighting a house cat and a sabretooth tiger. The problem with Aereo is not that it is so good for consumers that some people aren't getting "their cut"...it all boils down to advertising. With Aereo, it's no longer truly possible to tell someone how many homes they are reaching with advertising dollars. How are network executives supposed to quantify how much they can charge to advertisers, now that they have even less of an idea of the effect of those advertisements? Also, since Aereo was being considered as on-par with the rest of the CATV providers, why weren't they required to pay retransmission fees? Although I really did believe in Aereo's promise of a better future, and I absolutely think that the future of television is streaming linear broadcasting, I always knew that it was going to be killed off by legislation because the cable industry is SO corrupt that there is literally no room for disruption.
On the other hand, Uber is not illegal. It never really was. Taxi cartels are attempting to twist the law to make it sound illegal. But really, Uber is just a dispatching service for limo companies that already exist. If you're talking about UberX, that may be a different story. UberX is not available in all 90 cities that regular Uber operates in, but there are enough cities with just regular Uber service that it won't be a problem if they have to shutter UberX for some reason down the line.
On the other hand, Uber is not illegal. It never really was. Taxi cartels are attempting to twist the law to make it sound illegal. But really, Uber is just a dispatching service for limo companies that already exist. If you're talking about UberX, that may be a different story. UberX is not available in all 90 cities that regular Uber operates in, but there are enough cities with just regular Uber service that it won't be a problem if they have to shutter UberX for some reason down the line.